adminTikTok AI-generated ads have become the focus of a dispute with indie publisher Finji, which says the platform altered its game advertising without the studio’s knowledge or permission. Finji alleges that one version depicted a female character in a sexualised and racially stereotyped way, differing substantially from her appearance in the game.
Image credit: Finji
What Finji says happened with TikTok AI-generated ads
The disputed advertisement promoted Usual June, a game scheduled for release in 2025. Finji says an altered version appeared as though it had come from the publisher’s own account. The studio first became aware of the material in early February after viewers raised concerns in TikTok comments and on Finji’s official Discord.
Finji CEO and co-founder Rebekah Saltsman said the company does advertise on TikTok but had not chosen to use the platform’s AI features. The features she identified were Smart Creative and Automate Creative, which can create variations of advertising assets and optimise them automatically.
The publisher says it could not view or edit the AI-generated versions associated with its ads. For advertisers, this raises a practical question: can every creative variation be reviewed before it is shown? Finji’s account suggests that, in this case, the studio did not have access to the altered versions through the process available to it.
Finji’s attempts to resolve the issue
Finji contacted TikTok support and shared screenshots of its correspondence. The responses initially did not explain how the altered ads had appeared or when the issue might be fixed. On February 6, a support agent reportedly said there was no indication that AI-generated assets or slideshow formats had been used.
After Finji supplied further evidence, the agent acknowledged the unauthorised AI use, the alleged sexualisation and misrepresentation of the characters, and potential commercial and reputational harm. The agent also said the matter would be escalated and that the company would discuss possible next steps.
Finji says it received no further contact following that assurance. A later support response instead described the campaign as using a catalog ads format that combines carousel and video assets. TikTok declined to comment on the case on the record.
Why the dispute matters to game publishers
Saltsman criticised what she described as an inadequate response, stressing that the game and its characters represent work created by the studio and its team. She said Finji expected an apology, changes to how the technology is applied to paying clients’ advertising, and an examination of why the system produced content the company considered racist and sexist.
The allegations also highlight the importance of clear controls over automated advertising. Businesses using creative automation can benefit from checking which tools are enabled, reviewing available campaign previews and keeping records of ad versions and support communications. Where a platform does not provide access to generated variants, advertisers may need to ask support how those assets are produced and what options exist to disable or challenge them.
What to take away from the TikTok AI-generated ads dispute
Finji’s case centres on consent, visibility and accountability: the publisher says AI-altered ads appeared without its approval, while it could not inspect or edit those versions. The claims remain the publisher’s account of the incident, and TikTok declined to provide an on-record response. The TikTok AI-generated ads dispute underscores why advertisers should understand creative settings and seek clear review processes for any automated changes to their work.
